stancrist said:

The Marines seem to disagree.

We don't know if the Marines disagree. We know the decisionmakers do.

stancrist said:

They are planning/preparing for (near) peer conflict

True but as far as I know they are planing to fight in a very different way from how they did in the last decades.

stancrist said:

are getting rid of their tanks and going wheels all the way.

Because they are more focussed on strategical mobility. They need light vehicles for easy transportation. I also would ask: do they plan to conduct combined arms manoeuver warfare on soft ground? Deep snow?
In MOUT the lack of tracked vehicles really can bite them in their lower backside.

In general its not a good idea to argue on the base of what equipment was purchased. This is hardly every the best or what is really needed. It usually, in the vast majority of cases, its the cheapest. If one is lucky it also might be what some decisionmaker thinks that is needed. The conclusion: "they bought it, so it must be the best" can not be drawn.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Of course, i can imagine theatres like sub-Saharan Africa where the French rely on mobility to self deploy for considerable distances wheeled makes sense

Yes this is one environment in which wheeled AFV thrive. The ground usually is on the hard side, little mude (for lack of water) and the travel distances are huge.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

although i would imagine with rubber tracks the wear and tear on tracked vehicles should be considerably lower than with metal tracks

Oh god no!
Its the other way round. Rubber tracks have horrible high wear. Under cetrain conditions its lower compared to metal tracks but these conditions are soft and ideally wet ground. Not dry and hard.
The problem with long range travel for tracked vehicles is not or not only the track itself. Its also the roadwheels, drive sprocket and suspension. The suspension and the hub and bearing of the roadwheels get hot when traveling long distances. So there have to be breaks for cooling down. The roadwheels have a rubber lining wich is at least as susceptible as the rubber track pads.
It should be noted that most tracked vehicles are simply not designed for long range travel. It certainly would be possible to optimise in this regard and improve the performance but so far nobody really saw the need.

graylion said:

so, what is?

The mission of the vehicles is different. Allmost entirely.

An IFV is a armored fighting vehicle that is supposed to work in close cooperation with tanks. Its supposed to be on the frontline and fight. It needs to go where tanks go.
An APC is a transporter that can deliver its passengers to a fight. Its not supposed to take part in it.

Its a doctrinal and tactics thing.
Simplified: an IFV is a light tank that carries some dismounts that can be deployed if the situation requires. The IFV is the main asset in this combination.
An APC is a transporter who carries the main asset to its area of operation. The focus of an IFV and an APC are direct oposits.

This is why wheeled APCs work and wheeled IFVs don't.

Was not suggesting a BRDM over any modern 8x8 , its just that it seems ever heavier 8x8 have no free lunch in regards to mobility

As for APC , IFV  you can see ever smaller miltaries turning ever more wheeled APCs into wheeled IFV roles. the role of APC in practice now seems to be handed down to armored trucks like french Griffon.

Both look like IFVs , i imagine if vehicle packs a turret with anything more than .50bmg its trying to be an IFV doesn't matter itf its actually a turret or just a heavy OWS  ,French VBCI is more of an IFV than APC.

Boxer on the left, what is on the right?

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

As far as i can tell wheels vs tracks were decisions were mostly about costs if not outright acquisition cost then ,lifespan costs

I think logistics and maintanence may be a factor.

In recent discussions of sending Ukraine M270 MLRS or HIMARS, it came up that the wheeled HIMARS has about 1/2-1/10th the maintence needs of the tracked M270. Not sure if thats anecdotal or factual but it stuck out to me. 

For an expeditionary force, having something thats more durable / resistant to breaking down could be as important as offroad capability. 

...

Somewhat related, how capable are these 8 wheeled vehicles if a few of the wheels (say 2 on one side) have been destroyed? Can they still keep rolling?

That could be an advantage compared to a track, which seems like if it becomes damaged disables the entire track until its repaired or replace.

schnuersi said...

So far no major nation has adopted wheeled IFVs.

Zut alors!

graylion said:

Boxer on the left, what is on the right?

An ASLAV the vehicle that is replaced by the Boxer CRV.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

As for APC , IFV you can see ever smaller miltaries turning ever more wheeled APCs into wheeled IFV roles.

A wheeled vehicle can not fill the IFV role. Unless maybe the nation uses wheeled tanks.

The requirement to cooperate with tanks means the same tactical mobility is required. Unless the circumstances are very favorable this is simply not the case for a wheeled vehicles. This automatically puts all wheeled AFVs that carry dismounts regardless of armament into the APC category.
Some nations do press wheeled APCs in the IFV role, yes. This indeed usually is done for budget reasons. It doesn't change the fact that such a vehicle can not fullfill this role.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Both look like IFVs ,

And an SPG looks like a tank... it doesn't matter what it looks like. Its about what it can do.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

French VBCI is more of an IFV than APC.

No its not. It is wheeled with a high emphasis on operational and strategical mobility. It can not follow Leclercs cross country. Only STANAG K4 protected. Its unsuitable for duelling situations in a combined arms context. It does carry a lot of dismounts though. Its an APC with some combat capability.
Its in the same class as the Boxer and the Boxer is so not an IFV.

Basically most of the 8x8 we have seen in the last decades are a result of the conditions and circumstances of the last decades. Most important shrinking budgets. Second LIC and COIN. Wheeled vehicles have an advantage if its about IED and mine protection. Cross country mobility was not that important as it used to be befor and is now again. Armor protection against medium caliber automatic guns and serious modern AT was of little concern etc. In this context a wheeled AFV makes sense. After all police forces also use wheeled vehicles. The missions conducted where in a lot of cases much closer to police work than to typical military missions. As a result a lot of equipment changed and made militaries more police like. It is now obvious that this has been a dead end... and it has been highly controversial anyways. Only now there is equipment with a lifespan of decades that is optimised for yesterdays war.

RovingPedant said:

Zut alors!

If you want to suggest the VBCI is an IFV? Its not! Its a APC. Actually its the very definition of APC.
I pointed out why in more detail in a post above.